## Facts

- Terri Drayton, a minor, suffered severe chemical burns causing permanent facial disfigurement after being splashed with a drain cleaner in a Cleveland boarding house.
- A tenant, James Henderson, obtained a bottle of drain cleaner from the landlady to clear a clogged bathroom sink and carried the child upstairs while holding the product.
- Henderson poured a substantial amount into the drain, left the bottle uncapped on the sink, and covered the drain with a towel.
- Terri entered the bathroom moments later, contacted Henderson, and immediately screamed; Henderson then observed she had been doused with the chemical.
- Henderson attempted limited first aid based on his recollection that the label mentioned burns and water; Terri was taken to the hospital.
- The bottle involved in the incident was not available at trial; plaintiffs identified the product as “Liquid-Plumr,” while the manufacturer contended a different brand was used.
- Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer under negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability theories, alleging defective design and inadequate warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the drain cleaner involved was the defendant’s product.
2. Whether the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous under strict products-liability principles due to its composition, design, and/or labeling.
3. Whether the warnings and instructions were adequate to inform ordinary users of the severity of the risk and appropriate precautions and first aid.
4. Whether the alleged defects were a proximate cause of the child’s injuries despite Henderson’s handling of the product.

## Decision

- Judgment for plaintiffs after a bench trial.
- The court found plaintiffs proved product identity through credible lay and circumstantial evidence despite the missing bottle and the defendant’s alternative-brand theory.
- The court held the product was unreasonably dangerous as sold because its warning scheme failed to convey the magnitude of harm and necessary precautions in a household setting where children may be present.
- The court rejected the argument that Henderson’s conduct was a superseding cause, treating his actions and the child’s presence as foreseeable in ordinary domestic use.
- The court awarded damages to Terri Drayton and to her mother for related claims.

## Legal Principles

- Product identification in a products-liability action may be established by circumstantial evidence and credible lay testimony; minor inconsistencies in recollection do not preclude a finding by the factfinder.
- A manufacturer is strictly liable when a product is sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users or foreseeable bystanders, including where inadequate warnings render an otherwise lawful product unreasonably dangerous.
- Warning adequacy is evaluated functionally: the label must reasonably inform an ordinary consumer of the nature and seriousness of the danger and provide sufficient directions to avoid or reduce harm, including appropriate emergency response where immediate injury is likely.
- Foreseeable misuse, inadvertence, or inattention in ordinary household use does not break causation; a third party’s foreseeable handling errors generally do not constitute a superseding cause relieving the manufacturer of liability.
- Where inadequate warnings are central to the risk, the same factual failure can support overlapping theories of strict liability, negligence (lack of reasonable care in labeling), and breach of implied warranty (product not fit for ordinary use as marketed).

## Conclusion

The court imposed liability on the drain-cleaner manufacturer because plaintiffs credibly established the product’s identity and proved that inadequate warnings for a highly caustic household chemical made the product unreasonably dangerous, with foreseeable user conduct and child presence supporting proximate causation.


Drayton v. Jiffee Chem. Corp., 395 F. Supp. 1081 (N.D. Ohio 1975)